Saint Louis Catholic

25 September 2017

Despite the bare validity of sacraments and the good faith
and piety of Catholics who have never known or have no access to anything
outside the Novus Ordo, neo-Catholicism is, objectively speaking, a corruption
of the Faith that would not be recognized as Catholic by any Pope before the
Second Vatican Council, not excluding John XXIII. The neo-Catholic polemic
seeks always to conceal the reality that Monsignor Klaus Gamber, with the
future Benedict XVI’s approval, recognized some 25 years ago—long before the
Bergoglian Debacle brought the ecclesial crisis to the final stage of what the
future Pope himself called “a continuing process of decay” back in the 1980s.
Wrote Gamber:

A Catholic who ceased to be an active member of the Church
for the past generation and who, having decided to return to the Church, wants
to become religiously active again, probably would not recognize today’s Church
as the one he had left. Simply by
entering a Catholic Church, particularly if it happens to be one of
ultra-modern design, he will feel as if he has entered a strange foreign
place. He will think that he must have
come to the wrong address and that he has ended up in some other Christian
religious community….

[I]n the past there has never been an actual break with
Church tradition, as has happened now, where almost everything the Church
represents is being questioned. (Gamber,
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 107, 109)

Largely defended by Protestant converts within the Church,
the neo-Catholic regime of novelty, now headed by a dictatorial Pope whose
pursuit of novelty can only be described as fanatical, is rightly viewed as a
liberal horror by conservative Protestant evangelicals. The Orthodox churches,
with which a true reunion might actually be possible, want no part of a Church
whose concocted, abuse-ridden new liturgy they regard as a blasphemous joke.

By now you all must know about the filial correction filed by several Catholic theologians, scholars, and clergy-- including Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX-- correcting several heresies promoted by words, deeds and omissions of Francis. Here is the link for your convenience.Steve Skojec has provided a way for laypeople to show their support for this correction effort, and that link is here.

22 September 2017

Dear Readers, you cannot make this stuff up. The Board of Aldermen, joined by panderer-in-chief Lyda Krewson, unanimously passed a resolution honoring Anthony Lamar Smith, the person convicted of drug and firearm offenses who led police on a high speed chase after a suspected drug deal, leading to his death at the hands of police after it was alleged he reached for a gun in his car.Yes, you read that right. Now, understand that neither I nor anyone else I know and respect is happy that this person was killed, whether in self-defense or not. That isn't the point. The point regarding my absolute shock is twofold:1. It is highly possible that this person died trying to kill a police officer.2. If he was not trying to kill a police officer, he died after having been caught (allegedly) trying to deal drugs, and after (undeniably) leading police on a high speed chase in the wake of an attempted arrest. With a history of drug and firearms convictions.It seems, ahem, highly dubious to the point of insanity for the government to issue a resolution honoring, or remembering positively, such a person.In this climate of political and civic unrest, for the "responsible" governemental officials to do this, effectively calling the police and the judge charged with the case liars, it is beyond ludicrous and unconscionable. Here is a quote from the resolution:

"He loved children and was looking forward to the
positive life changes he was making in order to begin working with underserved
children in his community," it reads. "His love of the arts convinced
him to change his life course so he could accomplish his goals."

Who could do such a thing? Of course-- Lyda and Friends. The mayor has undercut her own police department by her public actions and words time and again. Smart. I wonder why it took police thirty minutes to disperse the mob in front of her house the other night. The next time she might find 911 unmanned.The City of Saint Louis is in such good hands.

19 September 2017

What a day. Another massive hurricane hits Puerto Rico. A 7.1 magnitude earthquake hits Mexico City. Signs and portents in the sky. The 100th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun approaches.And today, as you will no doubt have read elsewhere, marks one full year since the four faithful Cardinals presented Bergoglio with the Dubia, asking him to confirm nothing less than that he adheres to the constant, timeless, 2000-year teachings of the Church (Christ's own words, no less) on marriage, Eucharist and the nature of truth.This pontificate has been a disaster for Catholics worse than any natural phenomenon. And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Mt. 10:28). There has been a sulphuric miasma to this papacy, and to the current state of the Church Militant, since the night Francis walked out on that balcony and surveyed the people he would try to destroy. So much about things that don't add up, that are ominous, that just seem...off.

All of the unusual natural phenomena, starting with the lightning strike on St. Peter's dome the day of the putative abdication.

The support and applause given Francis by anti-Catholics and secular powers.

A PROFOUND SENSUS CATHOLICUS THAT SOMETHING IS DREADFULLY WRONG AND THAT CHASTISEMENT IS COMING.

Against this backdrop, many actual Catholics have been perplexed, and wondering, about what is going on. However, I have always sensed that many good Catholics didn't like to talk about the proposition that things may not be as they are told; that, in fact, as good Catholics it didn't seem right to talk about it. And though there have been opinions propounded on the net, I had not seen any attempt to poll the members of the Body of Christ.Therefore I put up a poll last week asking readers just to give their opinion: Who do you really think is pope, and why? Even allowing for the undeniable traditionalist (or as others rightly point out, Catholic) bent of the blog, the results surprised me.I think many are saying, "Hey, I'm either not crazy or else most of us are, but I think Benedict is still pope!" And of those, most cite the ineffectiveness of the putative abdication or some combination of factors including also allegations of heresy, invalid election, deposition, or mistake of fact.No, this is definitely not a scientific poll. Votes were limited only by platform, and a person with multiple devices could theoretically vote more than once. Yet there were 674 votes, and a sample of 500 in a scientific poll would yield a +/- of 5%. No, it was not a random sample. Yes, most respondents would be considered traditional Catholics or "conservative" Catholics-- but then again, the poll was intended for Catholics only. I don't consider the editorial board of NCR or America to be Catholic.But even considering the limitations, the results are, I believe, quite significant:WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE CURRENT POPE?Francis is Pope 16%Benedict is Pope 72%Some other person is Pope 1%No one is Pope 9%

IF YOU CHOSE ANY ANSWER IN POLL ABOVE THAT INDICATES FRANCIS
IS NOT POPE, WHY DO YOU THINK SO?

Benedict's abdication was not effective 38%

Francis' election was invalid 5%

Francis has lost his office due to heresy 4%

Some combination of the above 42%

Neither Francis nor Benedict was ever pope 8%

Out of 674 votes, a staggering 490 said that in their opinion, Benedict XVI is still Pope. That's 72% of those who voted. But who cares if it were "only" half? It boggles the mind.Of those, the plurality focused on the ineffectiveness of the putative abdication. Meaning, either he never intended to resign; he wrote his resignation in a legally ineffective way; he made a mistake in fact by not intending to resign the whole office; or that he was coerced such that it was truly involuntary.

Even allowing for the readership's "style" of Catholicism (for which Francis does not care), even allowing for some multiple votes-- the least that can be said is that hundreds of Catholics who found this poll on this blog have the opinion that Benedict XVI is still Pope and that the guy the world and most of the self-identified Catholics of the world hail as pope is in fact NOT THE POPE. Ann Barnhardt cited this for the notion that such persons should not feel isolated, weird or crazy-- that there are others. True, but I ask you to consider this: When was the last time in history (not including obvious interregnum periods) that at least 400 Catholics at any one time were not certain who the Pope was? It's unprecedented-- unless the sedes are right. And I don't believe they are.

This uncertainty, in addition to the maladies arising from personnel, policies and persecutions-- this uncertainty by and of itself-- is a chastisement from God. A chastisement that only the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart can alleviate.

There are perhaps practical solutions. Perhaps a true public correction/declaration of deposition would solve the problem of the current occupant. But it would not lift a cloud over the next conclave unless that declaration of deposition leads Benedict to claim the mantle that may still be his, or else prove that he did (or now would) freely and effectively resign, explaining away the coercive indicators from the last such time.

But can I be forgiven for thinking that there is at least one Cardinal who has personal knowledge of the facts of this situation, who is faithful and willing to live up to his vow as a Cardinal to defend the pope and papacy, who maybe has intimate and expert knowledge of Canon Law and the last two living persons to claim to be pope? Anyone?

Please do something before it is truly too late. We need to know what is going on.

16 September 2017

It looks a lot like Lyda Krewson. Let's begin yesterday, as word began to get out that the Judge was about to file his verdict (bench trial, as the white police officer waived a right to a jury in St. Louis City) in the Stockley case. If you don't know the Stockley case, here it is in a nutshell: a white police officer shot and killed a black suspect in a drug arrest following an attempted arrest, the suspect crashing his car into the police car, a high speed pursuit on wet roads, and a confrontation at the window of the suspect's car afterwords. Stockley says his partner saw a gun at the original stop, and yelled that warning. And that the suspect reached over toward the passenger seat as Stockley ordered him to show his hands; he thought he was reaching for his weapon and fired, killing the suspect in self-defense. The prosecution argued that Stockley formed the intent to kill while chasing the suspect, as he uttered a phrase like "we're killing this guy" (profanity removed) during the chase, and that further he planted the gun in the suspect's car afterword.The case happened in 2011, and neither the city prosecutor nor the federal Justice Department filed any charges. Fast forward to 2016, and the City decides to file first degree murder charges. Stockley's partner was given immunity, but was not called to testify. The Judge issued a 30-page verdict yesterday. I read every word of it. Essentially, the State didn't meet its burden of proof, common to every case of murder, of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Stockley did not act in self-defense and further that the force used in self-defense was not reasonable.That's it. As a lawyer, it looks like a slam dunk to me. Why? Though there was evidence presented to support a theory of premeditated homicide, there was at least reasonable doubt and more that it was justified self-defense. Maybe a good Law and Order episode, if there is such a thing. It all comes down to the burden of proof based on the available evidence. In a civil trial, where the burden is preponderance of the evidence, there could be a reasonable debate about a verdict. Not here.So, in a society based on law, where convictions aren't politically directed, this case, while tragic, is not a controversial one. The verdict comes down, people have an opinion, most lament a world where this can happen, and go about their lives.In a post-civilizational, pre-anarchical society, there has to be a political game to be played. I think it took enormous integrity for the Judge to issue this verdict, after having been politically pressured to sacrifice the defendant on the altar of racial pandering--regardless of whether he got it right or not. It would have been so easy just to find him guilty and slink back into obscurity. That's real courage.Now, on to Lyda, or as one commenter to this youtube video called her, Mayor Paintsmock. Here is her statement before the verdict. Remember, this woman won by 800 votes in the Democratic primary (what is known in St. Louis City as "the general election") against four serious African American opponents. She barely got a 30% plurality, and has been pandering ineffectively ever since:

Then, after the verdict, she issued this execrable piece of statement:

My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Anthony Lamar Smith, our police, judge, prosecutor, our citizens who find no comfort or justice, and everyone involved in this difficult case.

I am appalled at what happened to Anthony Lamar Smith. I am sobered by this outcome. Frustration, anger, hurt, pain, hope and love all intermingle. I encourage St. Louisans to show each other compassion, to recognize that we all have different experiences and backgrounds and that we all come to this with real feelings and experiences. We are all St. Louisans. We rise and fall together.

As Mayor, I will continue my work to create a more equitable community and do everything possible to keep all St. Louisans safe.

11 September 2017

Happy Monday, everyone. With just about a month to go before the 100th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, and with the situation in the Church continuing to melt down, I thought I would poll my readers to get a sense of your sense of things. There has been some speculation (reasonable at that) throughout the reign of Bergoglio, concerning whether he is pope or antipope. As he does his thing, and Benedict does his thing, the speculation increases.So, not considering our mere opinions to be conclusive by any means, but really just to take the pulse of Catholics who love the Church, I have put two polls up at the sidebar. The first one gets your pulse on whether things are as they seem. The second gets to specifics if you believe they are not.Benedict's actions, valid or not, do not place him in a good light, considering the disaster the Bergoglio rule has been and promises to be in the future. Unless, as I have allowed for in this space in the past, he is acting under a mysterious but direct order of Our Lord or His Mother. If that were the case, then Benedict is the victim foreseen slanders. I make no call, but just want to see what you think. As I have approximately seven readers, I expect seven opinions. Please feel free to expound on your answers in the combox.

07 September 2017

I always get a kick out of people who talk about Bob Dylan's "Christian phase", as though it were a mere artistic mood or artifice from which he emerged in 1983, shaking the dust of it from his feet. Bob Dylan is a poet, and a baptized soul, whose poetry is saturated in God, Christ, the Bible and the moral questions of life.Now I'm often asked, "Tim, why don't you talk about Bob Dylan more? It doesn't seem like you respect his work enough." True, true. So, to address both issues, and to help you, dear reader, along the pilgrimage and battle that is human life on earth, I offer this overlooked gem from Dylan's 1980s "wasteland" that the smart set derides: Maybe Someday, from Knocked Out Loaded (1986). Though this album is generally panned, I absolutely love it. Even most critics acknowledge that it contains one certified classic, Brownsville Girl, but I submit that this one merits some love as well.Now, as in any work of poetry that is not scripture, there will be some lines here that do not fit the lens in which I ask you to view this. But, apart from one stanza, read these lyrics and consider whether they could not be uttered by Christ, and addressed to the individual soul that He longs to save. In fact read them as though Christ is the singer:

Maybe Someday

Maybe someday you’ll be satisfied
When you’ve lost everything you’ll have nothing left to hide
When you’re through running over things like you’re walking ’cross the tracks
Maybe you’ll beg me to take you back
Maybe someday you’ll find out everybody’s somebody’s fool
Maybe then you’ll realize what it would have taken to keep me cool
Maybe someday when you’re by yourself alone
You’ll know the love that I had for you was never my own

Maybe someday you’ll have nowhere to turn
You’ll look back and wonder ’bout the bridges you have burned
You’ll look back sometime when the lights grow dim
And you’ll see you look much better with me than you do with him
Through hostile cities and unfriendly towns
Thirty pieces of silver, no money down
Maybe someday, you will understand
That something for nothing is everybody’s plan

Maybe someday you’ll remember what you felt
When there was blood on the moon in the cotton belt
When both of us, baby, were going through some sort of a test
Neither one of us could do what we do best
I should have known better, baby, I should have called your bluff
I guess I was too off the handle, not sentimental enough
Maybe someday, you’ll believe me when I say
That I wanted you, baby, in every kind of way

Maybe someday you’ll hear a voice from on high
Sayin’, “For whose sake did you live, for whose sake did you die?”
Forgive me, baby, for what I didn’t do
For not breakin’ down no bedroom door to get at you
Always was a sucker for the right cross
Never wanted to go home ’til the last cent was lost
Maybe someday you will look back and see
That I made it so easy for you to follow me

Maybe someday there’ll be nothing to tell
I’m just as happy as you, baby, I just can’t say it so well
Never slumbered or slept or waited for lightning to strike
There’s no excuse for you to say that we don’t think alike
You said you were goin’ to Frisco, stay a couple of months
I always like San Francisco, I was there for a party once
Maybe someday you’ll see that it’s true
There was no greater love than what I had for you

Helping you along the road through hostile cities and unfriendly towns, to that someday, when you'll hear that voice from on high...

A Day That Will Live in Glory

Pray for the Four Cardinals: Burke, Caffarra, Meiser and Brandmuller

“You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day."